5 ms·

Updated Facebook for Android requires "Retrieve Running Apps" permission

35 points by SoapSeller 14y ago

pkhamre 14y ago
Related to the new Facebook Home app-launche feature?
- dannyr 14y ago
  Yup. The Facebook Home pretty much communicates directly with the Facebook App which has all the permissions needed to be a Home Replacement/Launcher. This is why Facebook Home does not need any permissions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.home https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.h...
  - zerovox 14y ago
    Well it is no wonder they had 'Too many methods'[1] in their Facebook android application if they've packed all the features into their facebook client, and left their messaging and launcher applications as thin wrappers around the core application. Is there any good reason they don't split the functionality to the appropriate applications? Then maybe they wouldn't have to hack dalvik to run a simple facebook client. [1] : https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/under-the-hood-dalvik-patch-for-facebook-for-android/10151345597798920 https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/under-th...
    - bsimpson 14y ago
      Before I installed Facebook Home last night, I'd replaced the Facebook app with a Chrome bookmark, but kept Messenger. I still received and could reply to text notifications, so Messenger is definitely a real app. I wonder if Home is just a shell so they can maintain huge install counts on the main Facebook app. Then again, they could require the main app for API access and still use Home separately to handle drawing the Home UI and listening for Home interactions.
  - fudged71 14y ago
    Wow, I hadn't noticed that. I wonder if this new permission is for the purpose of app switching, since the launcher doesn't seem to require this permission in it's current functionality. It seems like a bad permission to add if the interface doesn't yet require it. Are they jumping the gun on new features or using it in the backend?
jcomis 14y ago
It's pretty much the only thing left they didn't already require, so no big surprise here. Perhaps it's time to switch to only using the web version on my phone...
- petepete 14y ago
  I do this and don't miss the official app. At first I did miss having my contacts synced, but HaxSync does this fantastically. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mots.haxsync&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mots.haxsy...
  - nfriedly 14y ago
    Just bought haxsync and so far its doing exactly what I want - thanks! Otherwise I just use FB in the browser too.
- hluska 14y ago
  Over the past couple of years, I've gone from installing tons of native apps to using almost all web apps. It has worked well for me - in fact, I hardly miss native apps!
mcrmonkey 14y ago
The increasing number of permissions that appear to be out of place for this app is exactly why i hit the "force stop" button for the app about a month ago and then went on to hit the uninstall button for it about 3 hours ago. I would like to continue to use the facebooks messaging features though. however their need to include the read/write/edit your SMS/MMS messages permissions is a serious put off and causes me not to want to install it.
- bsimpson 14y ago
  That's because they are the SMS app for Facebook Homeified devices.
  - toomuchtodo 14y ago
    Are Facebook mobile developers that bad they can't check if they're on a Homeified device and degrade gracefully if they're not?
    - RobAtticus 14y ago
      What are you asking here? They probably can, but they still need to request the permission upfront because that's how Android is set up.
      - toomuchtodo 14y ago
        I'm asking who is responsible for the poor application design choice.
        dstaley 14y ago
        It's not a "poor application design choice." Facebook wants to provide the ability for users to send and receive SMS/MMS from the Messenger app. Even though it's a feature you can turn off, the app must request the permission even if it's not using the feature. This is an Android limitation. A better solution would be to the app request permission only when it needs it, such as how an app requests your location or access to your photos on iOS.
kakuri 14y ago
I really hope Google fixes Android's broken security model. As the owner & user of an Android device, I should be able to configure feature access on a per-app basis. It's ridiculous that you have to either grant an app all requested access, or just don't install it. You should be able to install it, but choose which features to grant access to and which to deny.
- salman89 14y ago
  What if core features of the app rely on the permissions? Is the onus on the app developer to build checks for permissions or on the user to realize the app isn't working the way it should because they disabled some permissions?
  - moron4hire 14y ago
    I see nothing wrong with making developers check for features before using them. Should be used to it, with the variability of platforms.
  - vasco 14y ago
    The app would define core features and nice-to-have features. The user would be able to disable the nice-to-haves. Admittedly this just pushes the problem one layer down because Facebook would just make everything part of the core and force people to install. And now the user would have the burden of trying to figure out what was going on.
  - atesti 14y ago
    The best use case for oneself would be if missing features are emulated with dummy data using some app-firewall tool. The phone should give any app no chance of finding out, whether e.g. address book access was granted, but instead show fake data. Of course this would soon be a cat and mouse game if Google really implemented it for everyone: Developers like WhatsApp would check the address book data whether it is statistically sound and if not they would request you to grand access for real, etc. All the permissions only required for ads (like position, IMEI, full internet access, reading sms, reading address books) would also just have the app terminate if it's not possible, just like today they check for rooted devices based on tools like bash or they check for modified hosts files that block ads.
_chrismccreadie 14y ago
I would like to see Apple, Android and Microsoft provide a mechanism where the developers can explain, in their own terms, why they need access to certain permissions. I own an HTC HD7 which is WindowsPhone 7. I remember installing some generic music player app (for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it). It required access to, among other things, my location information. At this point the installation was cancelled and the app deleted from my phone. All I could think was "Why on Earth do you need to know where I am to let me listen to my music?". If developers were at least given an opportunity to explain to their users why they are requiring certain information, consumers may be more willing to allow access. It seems to me many apps take a "lets grab all the info we can" approach which is extremely off putting.
- Zigurd 14y ago
  Unfortunately, what you describe is the ideal case. A typical case might be: 1. Developer releases free app 2. Users find it useful 3. Developer seeks to monetize, adds some mobile ad network libraries 4. Ad network libraries want the user's location 5. User's who liked the app now find themselves OK'ing a frivolous-seeming permission during an update, or they have to uninstall the app, potentially losing access to some of their own data. And so we find our developer on the slippery slope. Putting the power to cause those apps to fail when they do dubious things in the user's hands means that developers would be more discriminating about their monetization partners, among other benefits.
  - _chrismccreadie 14y ago
    All good points and I'm sure many of the app developers on HN will be able to give reasons as to why they are unable to provide this information on the apps they develop and I suspect it is all closely controlled by the platform as opposed to the developers themselves. If the app I downloaded said "Our free version requires your location due to our arrangement with our Ad providers" I would have at least known why they were wanting my location. I know this doesn't solve the problem, people will still have the choice to either accept it (albeit grudgingly) or uninstall the app. What it does do however is acknowledge they are asking for permissions to a users data. If someone asks for my permission to use my car is it unreasonable for me to know why they want it?
lazyBilly 14y ago
I'm not gonna lie, I like using facebook, but I unplugged it from my phone a while ago and haven't regretted it. Social networking is a fun diversion but a terrible lifestyle.
devd 14y ago
FYI, on Android, you can get a list of installed Applications without any permission.
np422 14y ago
This is it, the final call, privacy invading has gone to far. I'm already wearing at least half a tinfoil hat, now it's time to put it on leave it there. I have already deleted my facebook account a long time ago and honestly I haven't missed it ... at all! I encrypt all my hard-drives at home and on my laptop, just because I can. I have several privacy extensions installed in my browser and I try to avoid using chrome unless it's absolutely necessary. I still use google search and gmail, but I will migrate away from them in the near future. I do not want to be the product being sold any more, I don't want anyone to be able to put together a complete profile on me with a few clicks on keyboard. "The line must be drawn here, this far - no further"

35 points by SoapSeller 14y ago

pkhamre 14y ago

Related to the new Facebook Home app-launche feature?

dannyr 14y ago
Yup. The Facebook Home pretty much communicates directly with the Facebook App which has all the permissions needed to be a Home Replacement/Launcher. This is why Facebook Home does not need any permissions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.home https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.facebook.h...
- zerovox 14y ago
  Well it is no wonder they had 'Too many methods'[1] in their Facebook android application if they've packed all the features into their facebook client, and left their messaging and launcher applications as thin wrappers around the core application. Is there any good reason they don't split the functionality to the appropriate applications? Then maybe they wouldn't have to hack dalvik to run a simple facebook client. [1] : https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/under-the-hood-dalvik-patch-for-facebook-for-android/10151345597798920 https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/under-th...
  - bsimpson 14y ago
    Before I installed Facebook Home last night, I'd replaced the Facebook app with a Chrome bookmark, but kept Messenger. I still received and could reply to text notifications, so Messenger is definitely a real app. I wonder if Home is just a shell so they can maintain huge install counts on the main Facebook app. Then again, they could require the main app for API access and still use Home separately to handle drawing the Home UI and listening for Home interactions.
- fudged71 14y ago
  Wow, I hadn't noticed that. I wonder if this new permission is for the purpose of app switching, since the launcher doesn't seem to require this permission in it's current functionality. It seems like a bad permission to add if the interface doesn't yet require it. Are they jumping the gun on new features or using it in the backend?

jcomis 14y ago

It's pretty much the only thing left they didn't already require, so no big surprise here. Perhaps it's time to switch to only using the web version on my phone...

petepete 14y ago
I do this and don't miss the official app. At first I did miss having my contacts synced, but HaxSync does this fantastically. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mots.haxsync&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mots.haxsy...
- nfriedly 14y ago
  Just bought haxsync and so far its doing exactly what I want - thanks! Otherwise I just use FB in the browser too.
hluska 14y ago
Over the past couple of years, I've gone from installing tons of native apps to using almost all web apps. It has worked well for me - in fact, I hardly miss native apps!

mcrmonkey 14y ago

The increasing number of permissions that appear to be out of place for this app is exactly why i hit the "force stop" button for the app about a month ago and then went on to hit the uninstall button for it about 3 hours ago. I would like to continue to use the facebooks messaging features though. however their need to include the read/write/edit your SMS/MMS messages permissions is a serious put off and causes me not to want to install it.

bsimpson 14y ago
That's because they are the SMS app for Facebook Homeified devices.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  Are Facebook mobile developers that bad they can't check if they're on a Homeified device and degrade gracefully if they're not?
  - RobAtticus 14y ago
    What are you asking here? They probably can, but they still need to request the permission upfront because that's how Android is set up.
    - toomuchtodo 14y ago
      I'm asking who is responsible for the poor application design choice.
      - dstaley 14y ago
        It's not a "poor application design choice." Facebook wants to provide the ability for users to send and receive SMS/MMS from the Messenger app. Even though it's a feature you can turn off, the app must request the permission even if it's not using the feature. This is an Android limitation. A better solution would be to the app request permission only when it needs it, such as how an app requests your location or access to your photos on iOS.

kakuri 14y ago

I really hope Google fixes Android's broken security model. As the owner & user of an Android device, I should be able to configure feature access on a per-app basis. It's ridiculous that you have to either grant an app all requested access, or just don't install it. You should be able to install it, but choose which features to grant access to and which to deny.

salman89 14y ago
What if core features of the app rely on the permissions? Is the onus on the app developer to build checks for permissions or on the user to realize the app isn't working the way it should because they disabled some permissions?
- moron4hire 14y ago
  I see nothing wrong with making developers check for features before using them. Should be used to it, with the variability of platforms.
- vasco 14y ago
  The app would define core features and nice-to-have features. The user would be able to disable the nice-to-haves. Admittedly this just pushes the problem one layer down because Facebook would just make everything part of the core and force people to install. And now the user would have the burden of trying to figure out what was going on.
- atesti 14y ago
  The best use case for oneself would be if missing features are emulated with dummy data using some app-firewall tool. The phone should give any app no chance of finding out, whether e.g. address book access was granted, but instead show fake data. Of course this would soon be a cat and mouse game if Google really implemented it for everyone: Developers like WhatsApp would check the address book data whether it is statistically sound and if not they would request you to grand access for real, etc. All the permissions only required for ads (like position, IMEI, full internet access, reading sms, reading address books) would also just have the app terminate if it's not possible, just like today they check for rooted devices based on tools like bash or they check for modified hosts files that block ads.

_chrismccreadie 14y ago

I would like to see Apple, Android and Microsoft provide a mechanism where the developers can explain, in their own terms, why they need access to certain permissions. I own an HTC HD7 which is WindowsPhone 7. I remember installing some generic music player app (for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it). It required access to, among other things, my location information. At this point the installation was cancelled and the app deleted from my phone. All I could think was "Why on Earth do you need to know where I am to let me listen to my music?". If developers were at least given an opportunity to explain to their users why they are requiring certain information, consumers may be more willing to allow access. It seems to me many apps take a "lets grab all the info we can" approach which is extremely off putting.

Zigurd 14y ago
Unfortunately, what you describe is the ideal case. A typical case might be: 1. Developer releases free app 2. Users find it useful 3. Developer seeks to monetize, adds some mobile ad network libraries 4. Ad network libraries want the user's location 5. User's who liked the app now find themselves OK'ing a frivolous-seeming permission during an update, or they have to uninstall the app, potentially losing access to some of their own data. And so we find our developer on the slippery slope. Putting the power to cause those apps to fail when they do dubious things in the user's hands means that developers would be more discriminating about their monetization partners, among other benefits.
- _chrismccreadie 14y ago
  All good points and I'm sure many of the app developers on HN will be able to give reasons as to why they are unable to provide this information on the apps they develop and I suspect it is all closely controlled by the platform as opposed to the developers themselves. If the app I downloaded said "Our free version requires your location due to our arrangement with our Ad providers" I would have at least known why they were wanting my location. I know this doesn't solve the problem, people will still have the choice to either accept it (albeit grudgingly) or uninstall the app. What it does do however is acknowledge they are asking for permissions to a users data. If someone asks for my permission to use my car is it unreasonable for me to know why they want it?

lazyBilly 14y ago

I'm not gonna lie, I like using facebook, but I unplugged it from my phone a while ago and haven't regretted it. Social networking is a fun diversion but a terrible lifestyle.

devd 14y ago

FYI, on Android, you can get a list of installed Applications without any permission.

np422 14y ago

This is it, the final call, privacy invading has gone to far. I'm already wearing at least half a tinfoil hat, now it's time to put it on leave it there. I have already deleted my facebook account a long time ago and honestly I haven't missed it ... at all! I encrypt all my hard-drives at home and on my laptop, just because I can. I have several privacy extensions installed in my browser and I try to avoid using chrome unless it's absolutely necessary. I still use google search and gmail, but I will migrate away from them in the near future. I do not want to be the product being sold any more, I don't want anyone to be able to put together a complete profile on me with a few clicks on keyboard. "The line must be drawn here, this far - no further"